Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond
| Decision Date | 20 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-3942,94-3942 |
| Citation | 46 F.3d 29 |
| Parties | 23 Media L. Rep. 1220 PEPSICO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William E. REDMOND, Jr., and The Quaker Oats Company, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
During my tour as motions judge, the appellants in this case (collectively Quaker Oats) sought leave to file their jurisdictional statement and other papers under seal. They implied a desire to hold the entire appellate proceedings off the public record. Such an extraordinary request requires an extraordinary justification, which the parties had not supplied. Accordingly I denied the motion with a citation to my chambers opinion in In re Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74 (1992), explaining how I evaluate--and why I deny--such motions.
My order informed the parties that they could file a sealed supplement to the briefs containing any materials that properly may be kept confidential. Quaker Oats responded to this order by including in its sealed appendix the whole of the district court's 75-page opinion. I can imagine, though only barely, a sealed opinion and order in cases involving issues of national security. Even so, the judge who enjoined publication of details of the hydrogen bomb's construction managed to explain his decision to the public. United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F.Supp. 990, rehearing denied, 486 F.Supp. 5 (W.D.Wis.), appeal dismissed, 610 F.2d 819 (7th Cir.1979). I have some difficulty appreciating how, if opinions in such grave matters belong in the public domain, opinions in commercial litigation may be sealed in their entirety. So I rejected the attempt to hide the district court's decision from public view.
Now I have received additional motions, from both sides, asking me to "clarify or modify" my earlier orders and to permit the district judge to keep under wraps the "approximately three percent" of the opinion that appellee Pepsico estimates contains trade secrets. This request, too, is denied. Not only the judgment (which is in the open record) but also the district court's explanation for its judgment should be placed in public view. Without waiting for me to rule on the latest motions, the parties asked the district court to take a blue pencil to the portions of his opinion that Pepsico wanted to remain secret. The judge did so, obliterating everything Pepsico asked him to black out. Yesterday the parties made a joint motion for permission to file a sealed appendix containing the full original opinion. That motion likewise is denied. (To tie up all loose ends I direct the Clerk to return the proposed sealed appendix lodged on January 6 and to place in the public record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Associated Press, In re
...indeed, on the appellate court in its later evaluation of the appropriateness of such action. See Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29, 30-31 (7th Cir.1995) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers). C. Exclusion of the Press from the Video Recording of Governor Edgar's In addressing the Press' object......
-
Co. v. Citizen
...in the long run so that the public can judge the product of the courts in a given case.”); see also Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29, 31 (7th Cir.1995) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers) (“Opinions are not the litigants' property. They belong to the public, which underwrites the judicial sy......
-
MetLife, Inc. v. Fin. Stability Oversight Council
...834 F.3d 589, 593 (6th Cir. 2016) ; Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ; Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29, 31 (7th Cir. 1995).13 See Siedle v. Putnam Investments, Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998) ; Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3......
-
U.S. v. Hanhardt
...the court must articulate its reasoning while taking care to keep from exposing matters that are under seal. See Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29, 30-31 (7th Cir.1995) (in a different context noting that the court's opinions "belong to the public, which underwrites the judicial system t......